#But it is genuinely not my problem and if you are correct and that is a vague about me clearly others agree with me too.

[linddzz]

Sat here and combed through all your jayvik analysis posts giggling and kicking my feet but PLEASE tell me more about the whole dom/sub thing, especially the whole “they have absolutely not discussed that this is the dynamic, it just happens and neither of them acknowledge it” because that is genuinely so interesting. Like I could already tell Viktor had hella ‘quiet calm collected dom’ vibes especially compared to jayce’s ‘excited protective puppy who would FOLD at being called a good boy’ energy…

But the whole bit on the bridge where Viktor smacks his hand away without even looking? And Jayce EARNS BACK TOUCHING PRIVELEGES? Fucking scrumptious please tell me more.

god i need to get to writing my fic bc I feel like "talk more about it" would be solved just by me dropping the link This ended up being TOO LONG so I split it between me going feral about that bridge scene and then me going feral at other moments of nonverbal communication that I use to feed my Dom/sub "oh you two are just LIKE THAT" interpretation. So. here's part one

That bridge scene tho...im so normal about it

hhhggg god that bridge scene is one that I rotate in my brain so much because it is such a small moment that makes so much of their dynamic click. For me, specifically, it clicks the "submissive like a guard dog is submissive" dynamic, where Jayce is, on a surface level, the stronger and more forceful of the two while Viktor is the one actually holding the leash (until he's too tired to because he's dying, and I only half joke when I say that their issues at the end of season 1 are because Jayce is suddenly the equivalent of a dog holding it's own leash and getting stressed out about it.

Jayce's touching before the bridge come across as pretty overbearing honestly. He's holding his hand out to keep Viktor from speaking out...

Heck, while the still screenshot doesn't show it too well, Jayce slings an arm around Viktor with enough force that it knocks Viktor off balance for a second and shoves him forward a little.

Viktor got dragged to the hexgate when Jayce is looking into shipping discrepancies happening there, even though it obviously doesn't involve him and he does NOT want to be there.

(In hindsight this is a hilarious bit of showing that it did not occur to either of them that there's no goddamn reason for Viktor to be here. This is council business, Jayce outright says "I'm a councilor now Viktor" which does not answer why tf Viktor needs to be there. these twits just handle all problems as a unit lmao. The tragic flip is that this is could then be a breaking moment when Viktor goes back to the lab, realizing that him and Jayce are not, in actuality, a single unit anymore. because Jayce got a second job that is not Lab With Viktor oh my god you codependent dweebs)

Up until that point it would be really easy to see Jayce as being presumptive and unintentionally overpowering Viktor in personality. Heck, it's what I thought the dynamic was as I was watching Season 1, though even as I thought that it seemed somehow...not quite correct.

And then the bridge scene.

Even before the hand-smack, there's a flip on the reading up to this point that Jayce has been accidentally bowling over Viktor by force of personality/physicality. Jayce comes in hot, upset, angrily standing over Viktor and chewing him out, and Viktor is just like "....and??"

Viktor is calm if baffled and annoyed at Jayce's frustration (also; Viktor just rolling his eyes and shaking his head at the actual riot happening a few yards away? hilarious. i love him.) His almost nonchalantly confused tone when he asks "what difference does that make?" always gets me. the entire back and forth says, to me anyway, that Jayce may be more brash and socially competent, but he's not overpowering Viktor at all, actually.

Viktor is going to do whatever the fuck Viktor wants.

This is immediately made clear by the much beloved hand smack. Viktor doesn't even look up, and his smack shows that he is perfectly capable of setting a hard boundary on Jayce's touching, and that Jayce will IMMEDIATELY fold and apologize when that boundary is set. That smack makes it suddenly clear that when Jayce goes for the shoulder touch right after apologizing, Viktor consciously allows it.

idk WHY but I also love this little tiniest moment when Jayce is going for the second touch. Viktor glances back as Jayce approaches him (looking like a cat with its ears pinned back lmao), then looks away as he accepts the second touch and they move on. It's such a tiny detail of showing Viktor, who is still pretty pissed at Jayce, seeing the touch as it comes in and then deciding to let it happen. im rotating them in my mind. please send help

In my framing of them being a guard dog/handler dynamic, the bridge scene is us seeing a moment of the leash getting a sudden sharp tug to bring the guard dog to heel. It resets all the earlier instances as being ones that Viktor allows to happen, because he doesn't see a need to correct it.

fuck man this doesn't even get into the bridge scene as a major crack between them as the moment Viktor loses his trust that Jayce will understand his decision. i am unwell

[genderqueerdykes]

trying to convince trans men that they should be more comfortable with “woman terms” i.e. lesbian, dyke, etc. is TERF rhetoric. lesbianism does not include men - i'm sorry to say this includes trans men. we've been trying to fight this for YEARS, because rhetoric like this puts lesbians in danger. please fucking stop. this is terrifying for actual lesbians.

you are a few wrong turns away from straight up saying we HAVE to let men in our spaces. and a few more wrong turns away from advocating for corrective rape (by the way! the person who coined the term “transandrophobia” has a fetish for corrective rape against lesbians and trans women).

please actually think before you spread things because this is dangerous rhetoric. like you are asking to get actual lesbians killed if the wrong men follow this rhetoric

hello, actual lesbian that you mentioned here. i'm a 32 year old butch dyke who has been a butch dyke since i was a kid. i've been a part of the lesbian community my entire life because when i came out as a trans man, the only place for me to go was to queer "womens" spaces. also you just straight up lied about the coiner of the term transandrophobia. it was not genuine assault, it was consensual indulgence in a kink. kink is not inherently REAL assault. stop making shit up to make transmascs and trans men sound worse. you're doing this on purpose.

YOU are the problem. no, i will never shut up or stop talking about this because you are the problem and you are the one causing people to get hurt because you are insisting that women cant EVER hurt each other when that's not true. you're creating an echochamber for radfems to brainwash vulnerable women into thinking that women can never hurt them so that radfems can control the way you think, act and feel. you have been absolutely brainwashed by terfs.

you are a few wrong turns away from straight up saying we HAVE to let men in our spaces.

they're right turns because we DO!

some lesbians are or are currently but may not be men in the future. you're scaring the ever loving hell out of trans women who haven't come out yet, but think they might be trans lesbians. you are leaving out and scaring the shit out of transfem lesbians who cant pass or visibly be out. youre potentially kicking out transfem eggs because they "look too scary" or 'look like men'. you're guilting trans women who used to be men and making them feel like evil monsters for something they had no control over. you're making trans women who are also men feel like garbage.

some lesbians are genderfluid, or bigender, or nonbinary. you're failing to accept genderfluid lesbians. you're failing to accept TWO-SPIRIT lesbians who are also men. not only is this transphobic but it's now racist because you're denying people with a cultural identity from being lesbians. there are genderqueer lesbians. there are butches who are men. if you think butches who are men deserve to be kitched out, you're a butchphobe and i don't want to ever hear another thing about lesbian rights out of your mouth because this isn't about lesbian rights, you don't give two singular fucks about real lesbians, all you care about is pushing your radfem agenda.

also this one is massively important because it shows that you just don't care for individual lesbians at all. some lesbians are fucking scared shitless when they first join queer spaces and need to bring support. you do realize lesbians have male family members and friends, you realize this, right? queer spaces are also open to the allies in the queer person's family. you're completely leaving out allies who want to learn more about lesbianism. you're making it next to impossible to teach other people about lesbianism because you think you're so special that the entirety of manhood is out to get you. have you ever been to an IRL queer space for more than a few moments? you have to realize that they allow cishet family members and friends to come. and people who are questioning and curious. that "man" you're seeing at the lesbian meetup could be a questioning transfem, and it looks like you just shot yourself in the fucking foot.

this is going to hurt literally no one and in fact it will stop other queer people from getting hurt because you are the one excluding real lesbians from the community and harming real people, including women. i can't trust someone who thinks like this to not misgender trans women and transfems when it's convenient. some trans women used to be men. some trans women still are men. some cis women are men. some are multigender, genderfluid... you would kick out a woman who's also a man?

whether or not you realize it, this mentality is hurting women because you're teaching each other youre too stupid, weak and incompentent to stand up to men. do you genuinely think other women are so goddamn stupid and weak that they can't defend themselves against men? that they aren't smart enough to avoid dangerous advances? that they aren't capable of shutting down dangerous atmospheres and behaviors? that they're incapable of causing physical harm or defending themselves.

you are not so special that the entirety of manhood is out to get you. yes men can be dangerous to be around, but not all men around you are fiending to rape and assault you. you have to get past that line of thinking because it's making you dangerous, and isolating you from society because all you can do is wallow in paranoid thinking and blame men for your problems that you refuse to tackle on your own. you can't blame men for you REFUSING to move past your trauma. pathologically avoiding a gender doesn't work. it is your fault you are so scared at this point. keeping yourself scared makes you vulnerable. men are not waiting in every single bush waiting to jump you, you have to move past this line of thinking.

none of what you said is even remotely true. you really have to step outside of your radfem echo chamber and speak to real lesbians. lesbians are and have always been more diverse than just being cis women loving cis women. and no, i don't believe you when you say you include trans women because i have a sneaking suspicion that trans women who don't pass hard enough don't count as women with this line of thinking. i do not trust you to not misgender trans women when it is convenient for you to push your agenda about how men and "certain people" are evil.

there have been men in the lesbian community since the start and we're not going to go away just because you're scared of people who will not and have not hurt you. you think you have the world figured out but you're wallowing in pity and blaming your trauma on people who haven't hurt you. you are so entrenched in your suffering and misery that you think that you have to. you are so entitled that you think the entire lesbian community should warp itself to what you want, but you even are you? why should we listen to you? do you care about anyone but your goddamn self? i don't know if you do. you sound very entitled and selfish. you sound like you believe the lesbian community owes you something. it doesn't. you owe masc and male lesbians respect.

i hope some day you learn how to be kinder to yourself and the people around you some day. having such a negative view of strangers is what's getting you hurt, because you're laser focused on the men who can hurt you, you fail to see that women can and have been abusing you your entire life. women are capable of abuse. women are capable of raping and killing each other. you are not inherently safe just because you want to be around women

this is such a sad way to see life. womanhood does not mean living in fear of men. if you genuinely think that womanhood is nothing but suffering. open your heart and understand that manhood isn't what hurt you. it's specific people. blaming the gender of "man" instead of individual people takes the accountability away from the individual. you are refusing to hold people accountable. you are the problem. you are the reason why men continue to think it's okay to do these things, because you are reinforcing the behavior from yet another side. wake up. you're the one making things dangerous for real lesbians. you sound much more like a lesbian separatist, political lesbian, and a radfeminist than you do a ""real"" lesbian.

i've been a butch dyke for 32 years. let real lesbians talk. we don't want to hear your radfem bullshit anymore. transmascs, trans men, ftms, and male lesbians belong. i don't care about you being scared about the "WRONG" kind of men. stop profiling men. you're doing the exact same shit misogynists are doing to you. it doesn't solve the problem. it just makes you a miserable asshole who supports bullying and abusing trans people, butches, and those "Real" lesbians you were talking about. you can't invalidate my dykehood, cuz i don't even who know tf you are. i'm a real dyke, and you can absolutely stay scorched about it. you need a lot of healing to do if me being a transmasc butch dyke is hurting you somehow. you can't let other people's identities get to you like that.

[lyricwritesprose]

Hmm . . . I'm not sure they are acting like they'll get the candidate they want next time, I think they're acting like their own purity is more important than what happens to everyone else, and that is specifically a very American conservative Christian or Christian-adjacent way of thinking.

Like. An evangelical person has a position. That position is that abortion is wrong. Therefore she wants it outlawed.

You point out to her that fewer people would have abortions in this country if we voted for effective universal healthcare such that the mother is completely covered, the baby is completely covered when he arrives, and any necessary leave time (medical or maternal) is a non-issue.

That would all be very nice, she says wistfully, but the more important priority is that the wrong thing be condemned by law, so that's the thing that she must vote for.

You point out that outlawing abortions does not actually, materially reduce the number of abortions, and that social support such as food stamps actually might.

Well, yes, she says, she would of course always support giving money to a person who's genuinely in need, but more importantly abortion is wrong, therefore she needs to vote for the candidates who say they will outlaw it.

You point out that the specific candidate who would outlaw abortion in her state is supporting half a dozen positions that she knows would be harmful and furthermore is a serial adulterer so, while his spiritual status is of course between him and God, he ain't doing tremendously well at living his life in a Godly, witnessing kind of way.

Well, yes, he's a bit of a fixer upper, she acknowledges, but he will outlaw abortion, which is important because abortion is wrong. Regardless of the fact that there are better ways to reduce the number of abortions. It is actually more important to point at the thing and state its wrongness than to do something that would actually help.

At this point you give up and bless her heart.

I can't say that I truly understand this mindset, but I see it. I see it a lot. (I have lived in the Bible Belt most of my life. I have met several of this person.) It becomes more important to them to Make The Correct Statement than to do anything effective or useful even for the cause they say they support. (Mind you, anti-abortion stuff in practice always has a lot to do with restricting and controlling women's bodies, but you do meet people who genuinely Believe, the useful idiots for the cynical politicians, if you will. Actually they're crucial; the politicians wouldn't get anywhere without them.) And make no mistake, the Make The Correct Statement problem is not just a thing with conservatives, or even ex-conservatives.

I feel like there's a certain type of "ex-evangelical" progressive who obviously supports mandatory progressive causes like abortion access and LGBT rights, but then in practice supports them "so strongly" that they can't compromise on anything. And if that means that they can't vote for candidates who support those issues because they aren't "good enough" and those issues get set back, well... That's a trade-off they're willing to make!

[iamthemaestro]

am I really at the point in my life where I’m having to decide if 8+ instruments is too many to bring to school…

[cosmicredcadet]

I hate those posts like "this is about aromanticism, don't tag as ace or aroace!" as if aroaces aren't aro enough because of our asexuality, and non-SAM aces relating to aros is somehow a bad thing. Also some of the aroallo accounts are so quick to regurgitate ace discourse talking points because they think aces are erasing and oppressing aros, I hate that so much

Yeah, to an extent I can completely understand where people are coming from when asking this. I have similar issues with people tagging autism posts as ADHD because they show up in my feed because of the ADHD tag even though the post only mentions Autism. It can be frustrating to be looking for posts and get something completely different. But on the other hand...it feels like some people are taking the idea of these tags way too seriously. Tagging is a minimal issue in the grand scheme of things. Tagging does not actually derail a post as much as people act like it does. Tagging a post you reblogged does not make that post show up in the main tags. I understand that AroAllos do not want to have their personal experiences conflated as Asexuality because it can feel like erasure when you write a personal experience about you identity only to have it tagged as something that is not you identity. But also I don't think people realize how much overlap a lot of aromantic and asexual experiences have. Acting like they are so incredibly different and can't have any overlap is willful ignorance at best and malicious separatism at worse. And it's incredibly disheartening as an AroAce to see how many Aro people seem to have gotten comfortable and even feel justified in the low-key bigoted things they've said against aces and aroaces.

Some of the absolutely wild takes I've seen can range from "AroAces shouldn't post in the aromantic tag" to "Don't tag your post as aromantic if it doesn't mention aromanticism [aka doesn't mention an experience in which the viewer deems as an aromantic experience]" to literal straight up acephobia or aroacephobia and it's absolutely wild because as someone who exists in both tags I've seen this happening basically solely in aromantic tags.

It's genuinely wild to me how we even got to this point in the aspec community where people are arguing over tagging to the point of trying to exclude certain aros from the aro tag completely because they feel less seen as compared to others and act like it's the fault of those other aspecs that they are being oppressed.

I was someone who was around when the Aro and Ace communities were mostly a united force. Because when the entire world was against us we at least had each others back. half the problems people mentioned when it came to the reason to split the community so drastically were not problems I ever actually saw. Hell they still aren't problems I see. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen but I personally have not seen anyone assuming or saying that if you're aro you must also be ace, which makes me thing it's not actually as big of an issue as people seem to think it is. the aro and ace communities being united didn't mean that aromantic was a subsection of asexual, though I believe it'd be lying to ignore the split attractions model in the creation of the aromantic identity and how both the Aro and Ace identities as we know them today kind of emerged from that model.

As I said not too long ago: the separation of the aro and ace communities has done more harm than it's done help. We are making it easier for people to target us by splitting up the way we have. By making enemies out of fellow aspec people you give aphobes the space and comfort they need to start pushing us out again.

We are literally in the same boat. if that makes you upset then you can get on your own raft but you can't then demand everyone else get on their own rafts too or try to sink the ship that everyone else is on.

the tag discourse is stupid. there are more pressing issues to be upset about rather than tumblrs shit tagging system. This helps no one. If aroaces posting in the GENERAL AROMANTIC TAG upsets you THAT MUCH then you can literally go into the aroallo tag to find the content you want to see or better yet MAKE THE CONTENT YOU WANT TO SEE. If an asexual tagging a post they relate too with ace bugs you that much then fucking block them. it's not erasure when someone of a different sexuality feels represented by your post. If an aroace tagging a post as aromantic when you feel it is only about asexuality makes you that mad then you can literally block them. You cannot decide how someone should tag their posts because you personally do not know their experience. Grow the fuck up.

I'm rose repulsed. there are barely any spaces and posts about rose repulsed people in the main aspec tags. You want to know what I did? I made my own fucking space. i went to the romance and sex repulsed tags and posted there. I made posts about being repulsed. I have a fucking blog and a discord server centered around repulsed people. Yes it sucks when other people don't make content you like but that's when you have to accept you need to make it your damn self and not throw a fit over tags on tumblr dot com.

apologies for a long rant, If this ask was bait then congrats you got a rant out of me but also I think if people really want to block me over this instead of having a conversation like adults then so be it. Those who think this sort of exclusion is justified and correct are not people i want to be interacting with in the community. they are not people I want following me. I support AroAllos. I support all aromantic people. I understand where they are coming from in their pain. I do agree that they deserve more recognition because they often moralized to be morally bad for their existence and as a repulsed person NO IDENTITY should be viewed as inherently bad. I have no ill will towards AroAllos making posts about ther experience, they deserve to have their experience shared. But the way some people have been acting in the aromantic community is not acceptable and should be called out because at this rate some people are really toeing the line of the ace discourse that happened in like 2016 and as someone who went through that I REALLY don't want to see it repeat itself.

[keelanrosa]

terfs when a study shows literally anything positive about trans people/transitioning: 'hm i think this requires some fact-checking. Were those researchers REALLY unbiased? Because if they were biased this doesn't count and if they weren't knowingly biased they probably were unconsciously biased, woke media affects so much these days. Have there been any other studies on this? Because if there haven't been this could be an outlier and if there have been and they all agree that's a bit odd, why aren't there any outliers, and if there have been and any disagree we really won't know the truth until we very thoroughly analyze them all, will we? Were there enough subjects for a good sample size? Did every single subject involved stay involved through the whole study because if they didn't we should be sure nothing shady was going on resulting in people dropping out. Are we 110% sure all the subjects were fully honest and at no point were embarrassed or afraid to admit they didn't love transitioning to the people in charge of their transition? Are we 110% sure none of the subjects were manipulated into thinking they were happy with their transition? In fact we should double-check what they think with their parents, because if the subjects and their parents disagree it's probably because they've been manipulated but their cis parents have not and are very unbiased. How many autistic subjects were there because if there weren't enough then this doesn't really study the overlap between autistic and trans and if there were too many then we just don't know enough about what causes that overlap to be sure this study really explains being trans and isn't just about being autistic. How many AFAB subjects were there because if there weren't enough this is just another example of prioritizing AMAB people and ignoring the different struggles of girls and women and if there were too many how do we know sexism didn't affect the results. Was the study double-blinded? We all know double-blinded is the most reliable so if this one wasn't that's a point against it even if the thesis literally physically could not be double-blinded. Look i'm not being transphobic, i want what's best for trans people! Really! But as a person who is not trans and therefore objective in a way they cannot possibly be, i just think we should only take into account Good Science here. You want to be following science and not being manipulated or experimented upon by something unscientific, right?'

terfs when they see a study of 45 subjects so old it predates modern criteria for gender dysphoria and basically uses 'idk her parents think she's too butch', run by a guy who practiced conversion therapy, 'confirmed' by a guy who treated the significant portion of subjects who didn't follow up as all desisting, definitely in the category of 'physically cannot double-blind this', completely contradicted by multiple other studies done on actual transgender subjects, but can be kinda cited as evidence against transitioning if you ignore everything else about it: 'oOOH SEE THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKIN BOUT. SCIENCE. Just good ol' unbiased thorough analysis. I see absolutely no reason to dig any deeper on this and if you think it's wrong you're the one being unscientific. It's really a shame you've been so thoroughly brainwashed by the trans agenda and can't even accept science when you see it. Maybe now that someone has finally uncovered this long-lost study from 1985, we can make some actual progress on the whole trans problem.'

[velvetvexations]

I wasn’t totally fine with it, I thought it was weird but trusted her enough to think she had her own reasons.

Such a brave stance against transphobia. If someone misgenders trans women you're going to be understanding if I continue to say I respect them and reblog their based transfymynysm? If someone was he/himming you and I said I trusted them to have a good reason for it, and continued to pal around with them, that's fine, yeah?

Also what’s with all this hostility? I thought we had a positive interaction a bit ago and were like at least a little cool with each other now?

Were we? When I had you blocked you continued to go through my blog complaining about my takes and getting worked up about how everything I do vexates you. Our last conversation was me getting you to correct [name withheld] because it apparently got confused on something you told it and to your credit you did that and [name withheld] did delete the post. Funny as it is I think [name withheld] actually has surprisingly consistent morals as far as yall go. The bar is truly underwater, but relatively speaking, you know.

My point is, I feel like you've been consistently polite in DMs even to the point of expressing sympathy when I got really worked up and anxious, but then immediately go and trash me in really petty ways, and continue to go along with accusations of me believing things I manifestly do not believe. You yourself made a post about how I "call trans women groomers" because I think a niche on a dying social media website is unhealthy for them and could lead to them being abused like the last group that tried to reclaim 'baeddel.'

And, I mean, really, the audacity to go all "I thought we were on better terms now? :(" after you reblogged Talia having a meltdown over a post from months ago where I very briefly mentioned practicing Hinduism and she went on a rant about how Hinduism needs to be done away with because it's an inherently evil religion. (see here before anyone tries to say that's not what she was saying)

But beyond that, you believe and support really horrible things about others, so I'm not sure why you're expecting us to be super cordial. I am, right now, being a lot nicer to you than a lot of my engagements with people in your camp. Like you're good and cool with a woman who misgenders trans men and tells people to send them harassing messages to "demoralize" them, that alone is pretty bad, let alone all the lateral aggression you prop up.

I don't know why I'm getting so defensive about this. Be a kinder person if you don't want me to be "hostile" lol? I'm not calling you a moron, for the sheer size of the gulf between us I think that's relatively polite discourse by my standards. If you want to sincerely be my friend be a kinder person. I'll invite you to D&D games.

Seriously, Flen. I told you in DMs I was going to leave you unblocked again to hold a door open if you ever want to get out of this bullshit and be a kinder, better transfeminist. I would love nothing more for us to be pals, genuinely. I've literally helped a TERF deradicalize and retransition with this approach.

But you're going to have to stop calling people dehumanizing slurs like "th**fab" and maybe consider misgendering something worth taking a firm stance on even when it's not trans women.

This stuff is also barely related to what I asked. That being, what are TRFs (supposedly me) saying about bi and pan people?

I don't know, I said I didn't know in the OP, that's why I was only responding to the tags. Which is to say that yeah, maybe you never had problems when you identified as aro yourself, but you were totally behind a woman going "all the transandrobros are the same people who were pro-ace during the ace discourse" just recently, a spinelessness that fits considering how quick you were to fold on your objection to Thicc misgendering people.

Imagine my shock (actually not shock at all) when I found out that trans radfems are also exclusionists towards ace/aro people and bi/pan people

lmao the fuck are they saying about bi/pan people

[insipid-drivel]

"Biz, what would you like for your birthday this year?"

"For nobody to misgender me for a day."

Turned out too much to ask (:

[alexjcrowley]

New dad lore unlocked, what the fuck do you mean your friend knew Luca di Montezemolo so you did a test drive with a Ferrari once

[camellia-thea]

i'm still thinking about the conversation i witnessed last night :/

[eclipsecrowned]

you ever just marvel that you’re living rent free slamming doors in the head of sb you haven’t thought of in months.

[ssaalexblake]

Some people on this site are So rude and mean over the most inconsequential bullshit that it’d be funny if it wasn’t actually hurtful. 

[inutaffy]

while im thinking about it i just have to say i really hate how people say "no we shouldnt do that because prices will go up and we'll have to pay more taxes!" and its like. do you want a livable world for the people that come after us or do you wanna keep suffering and struggling. LIKE REGARDLESS, prices will keep rising, why not raise the minimum wage? like REGARDLESS we have immigrants (usamerica literally is built off immigration but whatever right) why not give them the resources they need? i dont understand these fucking selfish ass society we live in (capitalism) where we dont have the capacity for respect and decency for OTHER PEOPLE??? people say capitalism is good because we get cheap chocolate and selection of cereals but i would willingly eat like one typa cereal the rest of my life if it meant no slave labor. or children in sweatshops. like i would personally love to live in a world where people cant say "your shoes were made by a 11 yr old girl in Taiwan" like why do rich people never feel guilt. wheres the conscience. how would you feel if it was your daughter? or sister? like idk thats fucking crazy. i would pay hella money if it meant i can have oil in our country that we didnt have to fucking bomb a village in idk iraq for . like genuinely and im saying this as a 16 year old i feel like it was never that serious to kill people over coal. like whenever people say they dont wanna pay more money to make up for ethical working conditions, it pisses me off. (fuck your clothes from shien and temu and wherever the fuck else) money doesnt work anyway its fucking pointless, our society is hung up on materials and its annoying as fuck, our atmostsphere has holes and our government has killed and experimented on people and done awful things and they keep doing it because they fucking can, and our prison system is inhumane, and theres so much casual and blatant racism that people ignore and women and trans people dont have bodily autonomy and im really sick of everyone treating people like shit , think about the common person, stop filming people, mind your fucking business sometimes and be nice, this world is shitty we put grey concrete over field of grass and made millions of gas guzzling automobiles and made living unbearable without a car because you need it to go ANYWHERE and you fucking wonder why everyones so desensitized ad  depressed because theyre isolated and cut off and people are just fucking mean and it pisses me off. ok goodnight.

[unproduciblesmackdown]

in the power of Noticing Things The Xth Time Around the instrumentals-imitative "doot. doot. doot. dooWAH" vocals that kick in during the second verse of centerfold? superlative

[coockie8]

(Not in an argumentative tone, just as like...clarification? Of what people are on about?)

People are referring to/reacting to jacobs little speech when he imprints on her about how hes going to be with her her whole life as she grows up, being (more or less whatever keeps her emotionally invested,) and then one day they'll be in a romantic/sexual relationship. And isnt that romantic?

Its not so much them going woah hes sexually attracted to a baby, and more them going ok we're happy about (grooming?) In this town, ig

Its also paired with all of the mormon stuff the author steeped the books in, so it becomes more difficult to take what hes saying charitably

Hes a wolf and not human, your point stands, but its also pointed out (i think??? This could be something my brain has fabricated) that this situation is super rare for them (wolves) and usually they leave until the kid is old enough for it to be ok

So inside the book (if im remembering) its still kinda sketchy even if the people involved think its great, but mostly people are reacting to the author thinking its great and the epitome of romance, because thats the actual sketchy part of the book. They just end up phrasing it like its an issue with the characters watsonianly, when actually its an issue theyre taking up with the author, complained about like "jacob wtf!!"

Again, I have never read these books, I am exclusively going off what I have been told by my sister who has read them.

If what you've said is accurate, then I can understand the issue people have, sorta. If the main issue is that what you've described happened and the author portrayed it favourably, then yeah, that's sketchy. But at the same time, if it's the authors portrayal you have a problem with, say that. Yes, I am being pedantic.

I'll have to talk to my sister about it, 'cause she has literally never mentioned this little speech of his, which is eyebrow raising, for multiple different reasons; either you're misremembering, or she is, but someone has something incorrect here (I'm not making accusations, just stating my perspective). If there is a part where he's insisting their relationship would eventually become romantic, that's a pretty crucial aspect she's seemed to have conveniently left out, and yes, that's an issue.

But at the same time, I have pretty much never seen anyone indicate this. All I ever see is people bitching about just the fact he imprinted on her at all. I literally did not even know this speech of his was a thing, that's how little it ever gets brought up when people bitch about this.

[chron0ph0bia]

you parents constantly telling u the shit that you've been trying to unlearn surely is smth